About your Search

20130210
20130210
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
lindsay graham believes the senate should hold up the confirmation ofs of john brennan an chuck hagel until the white house releases more information on the deadly benghazi for attack. senator graham wants to know exactly what the president was doing that tragic night. >> i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the c.i.a. director ship, hagel to be confirmed to secretary of defense secretary of defense. did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone to help these folks? >> what does this mean? joining us, a former media spokesperson for president george w. bush and joe mansion a democrat. mercedes and chris, welcome. mercedes, let me start with you. what does this mean if the senator is saying we're going to hold up these critical nominations until we find out about the president's activity that night? >> we've been waiting for months from the white house to figure out what happened in ban gaza. when you look at what susan rice mentioned on benghazi with her talking points, that basically saying that this was due to a protest. we know that wasn't the case. we
: then there is the president's nominee to be the new defense secretary former senator chuck hagel at his confirmation hearing i think it is fair to say you gave him a real going over about his opposition about the iraq troop surge in 2007. let's take a look at that. >> were you correct or incorrect? yes, or no. >> my reference to -- >> can you answer the question, senator hagel. the question is were you right or wrong? >> chris: i got a question for you. how are you going to vote on the hagel nomination? >> we still have some more information but again that wasn't an academic discussion i was having with senator hagel. we were losing the war in 2006 and when the president came around president bush who i had been very critical of came around and sent david petraeus and the surge we succeeded in iraq. now, because of the obama administration actions afterwards we are losing and badly unraveling. the fact is if we hadn't done that more american lives would have been lost unnecessarily. so for then senator hagel to say well, he will let history be the judge. he was there and involved and i'm sure he is wrong and
] with the hearing said john brennan and chuck hagel, they stand in real contrast. whatever one thinks of the john brennan, he was in command, knowledgeable, assertive, direct, and made his own case. would that chuck hagel had the same -- >> lord high executioner. >> he wants the military -- he wants to move it to the military. >> he wants to get the cia back into the business of collecting intelligence and not paramilitary kinds of things. somebody is going to have to do that job, though. >> marco rubio, immigration, and the future of republican politics. >> are we serious about border security and employment verification? are we serious about making this the last, last time we have this conversation? or was simply playing political games with people's lives and undercutting the respect for the rule of law, which, ironically, is the very reason they seek to come to this country in the first place? >> that is a congressman from south carolina. a long time ago, ronald reagan said that hispanics were republicans who did not know it yet. if the last election is any indication, they still don't. here
continue to supply weapons. >> chris: then there is the president's nominee, former senator chuck hagel, at his confirmation hearing, it is fair to say you gave him a real going-over about his opposition to the iraq troop surge in 2007. let's look at that: >> we are correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to the -- >> answer the question, senator hagel. the question is: were you right or wrong? >> chris: i have a question for you, how will you vote on the hagel nomination? >> we still have more information, but, again, that was not be a academic discussion i was having with him. we were losing the war in 2006. and, when the president came around, bush, who i had been very critical of, sent david petraeus and the surge, we succeeded in iraq and now, because of the obama administration's action afterwards we are losing, very badly unraveling, but the fact is the we hadn't done that more american lives would have been lost unnecessarily. so, for then senator hagel to say, well, he'll let history be the judge, he was there and involved. and i'm sure he is wrong and knows he's wrong
committee. of course i can't comment beyond that. >> what about senator hagel? will we be confirmed? or is there some discussion that he should pull back from the nomination and allow the president to nominate someone else? >> i think senator hagel will be confirmed. and the republican senators have told me privately they are not going to initiate the first filibuster in history on a secretary of defense nominee. he has taken a lot of grief from members of his own political party, many whom he served with in the senate. in the end i believe he'll be the next secretary of defense. >> including dick cheney, who said that he was among those national security nominees who were second rate choices by the president. >> i'm not going to comment on vice president cheney's views of public service at this point. >> all right. senator durbin, we will leave it there. thank you very much for your views. >> thank you. >>> we're back now with the roundtable. mayor reed, we'll get to drones in a few minutes, even though we ended there. politics now in washington over these automatic spending cuts a
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)